本論文包含三個研究，其主要目的分別為：（一）探討文章所採用的敘述視點對於不同年級的學生建構空間情境模式的影響；（二）探討外在表徵的使用和敘述視點對學生建構空間情境模式的影響；（三）比較專家學生和生手學生閱讀空間訊息的認知歷程和空間情境模式的內容。其中研究一和研究二為量化取向，研究三為質化取向。
用於研究一和研究二的研究工具為研究者自編之「建構空間情境模式能力測驗」。研究一的研究對象為台北縣秀朗國小五、六年級以及永和國中一年級的學生，共計457人。實驗係採3×2二因子受試者間設計來進行：自變項為年級（國小五、六年級以及國中一年級）和敘述視點（路徑式、俯瞰式），依變項為受試者在「建構空間情境模式能力測驗」的得分。研究二的研究對象為台北縣秀朗國小六年級的學生，共計336人。採3×2二因子受試者間設計來進行實驗：自變項為表徵組別（自由表徵組、繪圖表徵組、限制外在表徵組）和敘述視點，依變項為受試者在「建構空間情境模式能力測驗」的得分。上述兩個研究所搜集到的資料以二因子變異數分析進行量化統計處理。另外，研究者從研究一中選出六位在「建構空間情境模式能力測驗」高得分的學生與六位在「建構空間情境模式能力測驗」低得分的學生，做為研究三的研究對象，並對這些研究對象閱讀空間訊息時的口語原案進行質化分析。
這三個研究的主要發現如下：
1. 「年級」和「敘述視點」的交互作用效果未達顯著；換言之，由「敘述視點」不同而造成的「建構空間情境模式能力測驗」的得分差異並不因「年級」的不同而有所不同。
2. 隨著年級的增加，受試者建構空間情境模式的能力成直線趨向增加。
3. 閱讀路徑式敘述的受試者在「建構空間情境模式能力測驗」的得分顯著高於閱讀俯瞰式敘述的受試者的得分。
4. 「敘述視點」和「表徵組別」的交互作用未達顯著水準；亦即，由「敘述視點」不同而造成「建構空間情境模式能力測驗」的得分差異並不因「表徵組別」的不同而有所不同。
5. 「繪圖表徵組」在「建構空間情境模式能力測驗」的得分顯著高於「自由表徵組」，但是「繪圖表徵組」在「建構空間情境模式能力測驗」的得分是否顯著高於「限制外在表徵組」則有待進一步的研究。
6. 建構空間情境模式的正確性與受試學生是否在閱讀歷程中將空間情境模式具象化有關，也與受試學生本身的參照架構概念有關。
7. 閱讀不同敘述視點的空間訊息時，在認知歷程和表徵內容兩方面似乎都有差異。
本論文最後提出對教育應用和未來研究的建議。

The thesis comprises three studies. The purposes of these three studies were: (1) to explore how the perspectives of description taken affected students of different grades to construct spatial situation model, (2) to explore how the use of external representation affected students who read description of alternative perspective to construct spatial situation model, and (3) to compare the cognitive processes and contents of spatial situation model of expert students and novice students when they were reading spatial information. Among these three studies, StudyⅠand StudyⅡwere quantitative approach while StudyⅢwas qualitative approach.
The instrument used in StudyⅠand StudyⅡ was "The Test of Ability to Construct the Spatial Situation Model" (TACSM), edited by the present researcher. The subjects of StudyⅠwere 457 fifth to seventh graders from Taipei County. In StudyⅠ, an experiment of 3×2 factorial between-subject design was adopted, with the "Grades" and "Perspectives of Description" as independent variables and "Scores of TACSM" as dependent variable. The subjects of StudyⅡwere 336 sixth graders from Taipei County. In StudyⅡ, an experiment of 3×2 factorial between-subject design was also undertaken, but with "Representation Groups" and "Perspectives of Description" as independent variables and "Scores of TACSM" as dependent variable. Two-way ANOVA was used to analyze data thus obtained in these two studies.
The participants of StudyⅢ were the six subjects who got highest scores and the six subjects who got lowest scores on TACSM in StudyⅠ.The protocols of the participants were transcribed and analyzed via typical qualitative approach.
The main findings of these three studies were as follows:
(1) The mean scores of "The Test of the Ability to Construct Spatial Situation Model" (TACSM) were significantly different among 5th, 6th, and 7th graders. The result of trend analysis showed that the linear trend was significant.
(2) The mean score of TACSM for subjects who accepted "Route Type" perspective of description was significantly higher than those who accepted "Survey Type" perspective description.
(3) The interaction effect between "Grades" and "Perspectives of Description" was not significant. With regard to the mean score of TACSM, the difference between two types of perspective of description did not change with grades.
(4) The mean score of TACSM for subjects who used "Pictorial Representation" was significantly higher than those who used "Free Representation". However, whether or not the mean score for subjects who used "Pictorial Representation" was higher than those who used "None External Representation" needs further study.
(5) The interaction effect between "Representation Groups" and "Perspectives of Description" was not significant. That is, the difference between scores caused by the perspectives of description did not change with the three group of representation.
(6) The accuracy of construction of spatial situation model was related to whether the readers concretized the spatial situation model when they were reading, and also related to the referential framework the readers possessed.
(7) When reading spatial information with different perspectives of description, the subjects showed differences both in their cognitive processes and in the contents of representation.
At the end of this thesis, several suggestions for education and further studies were provided.

一、 中文部份：
岳修平　譯（民87）：教學心理學－學習的認知基礎。台北。遠流。
邱美虹（民82）：實體與心智模式之關係──分子模型在輔助學習上所扮濱的角色。行政院國家科學委員會研究報告　PA8109-1003。
林清山　譯（民79）：教育心理學－認知取向。台北。遠流。
周容瑜（民84)：心像與文章結構對文章閱讀的影響。私立輔仁大學應用心理學研究所。
柯華葳　李俊仁（民88）：閱讀困難的理論架構及驗證。論文發表於學童閱讀困難的鑑定與診斷研討會。嘉義縣：國立中正大學心理學系。
胡永崇（民88）；國語文低成就學生後設認知能力之研究。論文發表於學童閱讀困難的鑑定與診斷研討會。嘉義縣：國立中正大學心理學系。
許民陽（民81）：國小學童對方向及位置兩空間概念認知發展的研究。行政院國家科學委員會研究報告　NSC 81-0111-S-133-03。
張春興（民 83)：教育心理學－－三化取向的理論與實踐。台北。東華。
張麗芬（民76）：兒童空間認知能力發展之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所論文。
黃世琤（民84）：科學資優生空間能力探討：從二度空間的平面訊息建構三度空間的立體模型複雜度及觀察點效應探討。行政院國家科學委員會研究報告　RC8410-1131。
戴宜蓉(民75)：學前兒童對空間指示詞的理解與應用。國立台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
蘇永生(民81)：兒童的地圖認知及其教育之研究。私立中國文化大學地學研究所地理組碩士論文。

二、英文部份：
Blades, M., & Spencer, C. (1988). Young children's ability to use coordinate references. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 150(1), 5-17.
Bryant, D. J., Tversky, B. & Franklin, N. (1992). Internal and external spatial frameworks for representing described scenes. Journal of Language and Memory, 31, 74-98.
Craton, L. G., Elicker, J. Plumert, J. M. & Pick, H. L. (1990). Children's use of frames of reference in communication of spatial location. Child Development, 61, 1528-1543.
Franklin, N., & Tversky, B. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 63-76.
Franklin, N., Tversky, B., & Coon, V. (1992) Switching points of view in spatial mental models acquired from text. Memory and Cognition, 20, 507-518.
Denis, M., & Cocude, M. (1992). Structural properties of visual images constructed from poorly or well-structured verbal descriptions. Memory & Cognition, 20(5), 497-506.
Ehrlich, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). Spatial descriptions and referential continuity. Journal of verbal language and verbal behavior, 21, 296-306.
Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: verbal reports as data ( pp.258-313). Cambridge Mass: MIT.
Franklin, N. (1992). Spatail Representation for Described Environments. Geoforum, 23(2), 165-174.
Foos, P. W. (1980). Constructing cognitive maps from sentences. Journal of experimental psychology: Human learning and memory, 6(1), 25-38.
Glenberg, M., & McDaniel, M. A. (1992). Mental models, pictures, and text integration of spatial and verbal information. Memory & Cognition, 20(5), 458-460.
Glenberg, A. M., & kruley, P. (1992). Picture and anaphora : Evidence for independent process. Memory & Cognition, 20(5), 461-471.
Grabowski, J., & Weiss, P. (1996). The prepositional inventory of languages: a factor that affects comprehension of spatial prepositions. Language science, 18,19-35.
Haenggi, D., Kintsch, W., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1995). Spatial situation models and text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 19, 173-199.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver (pp.3-34). New Jersey: Hillsdale.
Kintsch, W. (1986). Learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 3(2), 87-108.
Kintsch, W. (1993). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294-303.
Kintsch, W., & van. Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of discourse comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Mani, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). The mental representation of spatial descriptions. Memory & Cognition,10(2), 181-187.
Millis, K. K., & Cohen, R. (1994). Spatial representations and updating situation models. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4), 368-380.
Muir, S. P., & Cheek, H. N. (1991). Assessing Spatial Development: Implications for Map Skill Instruction. Social Education,55(5) , 316-319.
Morrow, D. G. (1990). Spatial models, prepositions, and verb-aspect markers. Discourse Processes, 13, 441-469.
Morrow, D. G., Greenspan, S. L., & Bower, G.H. (1987). Accessibility and situation models in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 165-187.
Perrig, W., & Kintsch, W. (1985). Propositional and situational representation of text. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 503-518.
Plumert, J. M., Ewert, K. & Spear, S. T. (1995). The Early Development of Children's Communication about nested Spatial Relations. Child development, 66, 959-969.
Rinck, M., Williams, P., Bower, G., & Becker, E. S. (1996). Spatial situation models and narratives understanding : some generalizations and extensions. Discourse Processes, 21, 23-55.
Roberts, R. J. Jr, & Aman, C. J. (1993). Developmental Difference in Giving Directions: Spatial frames of reference and Mental rotation. Child Development, 64,1258-1270.
Rosser, R. (1993). Cognitive Development: Psychological and biological perspective( pp.71-111). Massachusetts : Needham Heights.
Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1992a). Descriptions and depictions of environments. Memory & Cognition, 20(5), 483-496.
Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1992b). Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 261-292.
Thorndyke, P. W., & Hayes_Roth, B. (1982). Differences in Spatial Knowledge Acquired from Maps and Navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560-589.
Tversky, B., Franklin, N., Taylor, H. A. & Bryant, D. J. (1994). Spatial Mental Models from Description. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(9), 656-668.
Waller, G. & Harris, P. L. (1988). Who's going where? Children's route descriptions for peers and younger children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,6, 137-143.
Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P. & Graesser, A. C. (1996) Dimensions of Situation Model Construction Narrative Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2),386-397.
Zwaan, R. A., & Oostendorp, H. (1993). Do readers construct spatial representations in naturalistic story comprehension ? Discourse Processes, 16, 125-143.